ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

2017-02-21 22:44:36
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Lorenzo Colitti 
<lorenzo(_at_)google(_dot_)com>
wrote:

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Christopher Morrow <
christopher(_dot_)morrow(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

But the configuration cost and management overhead is not proportional to
the hosts that are served by those interconnections, it is proportional to
the number of interconnections. A 10x100G peering interconnection that
serves X million hosts is one interface that has to be managed.


isn't the dicsussion here really:
  "If you want to use /64 go ahead, if you want to use /121 go for it, if
you want to use SLAAC you'll get a /64 and like it"


Not sure. I for one wouldn't agree with that position, because I don't see
that /121 has enough advantages over /127 and /64 - and few enough
downsides for general-purpose hosts - to make it a good idea in general.


I don't think /121 is anymore special than /127... or /64. My point was we
don't care what prefix people use, generally, that there are cases where a
/64 is required and that's fine, there are cases where /64 isn't and people
can do what they want there.  It's simple enough to do SLAAC/64 on lans and
other places.

Requiring /64 or /127 and nothing else means when you do have to do a /120
or something else you MAY end up fighting vendor problems because they made
assumptions about: "only ever 64 or 127".
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>